Science and Philosophy are the Disciplines of Systematic Methods of Refutation!

There are two pillars of science - the minor and the major. The minor consists of propositions made about the world and the major consists of the bending over backwards to prove each and every proposition false.

The layman or the scientist might propose that if air is comprised of randomly moving particles then a mote of smoke rising into air will quickly diffuse. The layman or scientist, seeing a mote of smoke rising into the air diffuse will conclude that therefore air indeed is comprised of randomly moving particles.

That all sounds scientific, and it is, but in fact only thereafter do things get truly scientific. The very essence of science, and philosophy for that matter, is the discipline of bending over backwards to prove yourself and/or others wrong. The scientist, knowing that, or having the faith that, absolutely every hypothesis possible could be wrong - bends over backwards to prove each hypothesis false.

There are scientists still today doing their damnedest to prove wrong the current view that all masses, great or small, fall through a gravitational field at precisely the same speed when, especially, in a vacuum. As ludicrous as the above particular example seems - the scientific method is founded on a position of faith that there is always a chance that each and every scientific hypothesis and even every seemingly long established theory can yet be proved wrong.

Consider propositional logic, the very foundation of science and philosophy. We analyse the four possible outcomes and their implications of a simple proposition If it is raining the roads will be wet.

If it is raining the roads will be wet.

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet  Good argument  Affirming the antecedent.

2.It is not raining therefore the roads will not be wet  Bad argument  It might have just recently stopped raining  Denying the antecedent.

3.The roads are wet therefore it is raining  Bad argument  It might have just recently stopped raining  Affirming the consequent.

4.The roads are not wet therefore it is not raining  Good argument and in fact the major pillar of the scientific and philosophical systems of method  Denying the consequent.

Because all scientific hypotheses and theories, the minor pillar of science, are in fact blatant logical fallacies of the 3rd type above, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the major and solid pillar of science has to be the logically valid mode of the 4th type above, that of denying the consequent which is the pursuance of disproof.

In the same way that just because the roads are wet it does not mean it is raining it will be that just because the mote of smoke did diffuse the air is anyway not necessarily comprised of randomly moving particles. It could be radiation that causes the molecules to diffuse and thus radiation would have to be eliminated.

In the same way that science is the system of methods devised and employed relentlessly to refute propositions pertaining to empirical matters of facts philosophy is the system of devised and employed methods in pursuance of disproving propositions of a more abstract nature which lie between matters of empirical facts and opinions that border on the realm of matters of taste.

It is as Socrates, Aristotle and Epicurus argued, between 400BC and 200BC, progress in knowledge (justified true beliefs) comes about not by offering up propositions about the world or the human condition but rather by a systematic approach of discovering what is wrong with every such proposition by the very slow process of eliminating what might be right from what is certainly wrong subjecting every humanly possible proposition offered to the rigors of fervent methodical attempts of refutation.

Scientists and Philosophers are driven by faith  faith that they could yet discover to be false even those propositions assumed by other scientists and layman alike to be most certain. Philosophers even try to prove that we dont exist or that if we do then we exist in a world somewhat similar to that portrayed by the Matrix movie sequel.

A philosopher lives off of faith - faith in a view that if only she had the time she could prove that everything you say is either false or simply meaningless and so long as she cannot demonstrate something you say to be false or meaningless she is willing to let fly, for the time being, your so far un-refuted propositions.

JS Mills said "We all know that some of our opinions are false, which they are we do not know, for if we did - they would not be our opinions".

Never give up the chance that you are wrong - we must remain faithful to the logically valid view held by scientists and philosophers that we are fallible and could always be wrong even about the seemingly most certain of propositions but especially about those matters for which we do not even have a single shred of evidence.

There are many truths not yet known and there are many beliefs not yet known to be false. The sorting is done through the process of philosophising.

In the Theaetetus, 380BC, Socrates describes or defines quite plainly what philosophy is. He starts by explaining that his mother is a midwife. He explains that midwifes in Athens are barren, that one of the qualifications for being a midwife is that they can no longer bare children themselves. He compares his philosophising to midwifery. He goes on then to say

Well, my midwifery has all the standard features, except that I practice it on men instead of woman, and supervise the labour of their minds, not their bodies. And the most important aspect of my skill is the ability to apply every conceivable test to see whether the young man's mental offspring is illusory and false or viable and true. But I have this feature in common with midwives  I myself am barren of wisdom. The criticism that is often made of me  that it is lack of wisdom that makes me ask others questions, but say nothing positive myself  is perfectly true.

Socrates's mother was a midwife and his father a stone mason.

A stone mason making, say, a bust, would reveal the truth by eliminating what is not the truth. He chips away at the falsities so as to see more clearly the truth. In this sense, we discover what is right by eliminating what is wrong.

This is different from the process of troubleshooting a system of which we know how it is built to run where because of this knowledge it is more effective to find what is wrong by eliminating what is right. But the opposite must be when we are working with unknowns or uncertainties.

More than anything else philosophy points out what is wrong with a certain path. It might not offer an alternative path in its place. But at least those previously on the first path no longer need to waste any time venturing down there. They are free to look elsewhere for a more fruitful quest.

Our western enlightenment principles are founded upon the problem of induction put forward by an atheist called Sextus Epiricus circa 200AD. This problem, during the reformation, was known as the problem of the criterion.

We can never be as certain about what is right as we can about what is wrong. So the quest to discover what is right will have to be a process of making more distinct the candidates for right by eliminating what is wrong.

If we can never be as certain about what is right as we can about what is wrong then we must pursue a system of negative freedoms rather than positive freedoms. That would fit right in with the principle of superiority of falsification over verification, JS Mill over JJ Rousseau, and why the many ancient commandments, including the Egyptian commandments from which the Ten Commandments came, are all negative commandments rather than positive - explaining why they evolved to not be positive freedoms - so to speak.

All again thoughts founded on Sextus Empiricus's problem of induction and thus the problem of the criterion.

Values, such as the enlightenment principles of autonomy, universality and tolerance (no man imposes his belief on any other man - one is therefore intolerant when one thinks he knows the only way that all others should follow) are arrived at from arguments starting with the principle of "the problem of the criterion".

The problem of the criterion arises when we have to choose between two or more different or contrary beliefs that each claim to be the only truth - how do we decide between them. What is it in them we should look for as an indicator of its being the one only truth? That unfortunately is to ask for the very faculty needed to decide between them. Thus the answer cannot lie in either of the two options but in the enquirer him or her self. So we come to realise our values are to be arrived at by argument and evidence and certainly not tradition and custom which anyway generally tend to have been derived out of infection by cognitive illusions.

Many of our beliefs can be inconsistent on account of some or other cognitive illusion. Optical illusions are easy enough to appreciate, two lines, that are in fact parallel but cleverly made to look like they bow or diverge, can be checked with a ruler. But cognitive illusions have to be dug out with philosophising. Many of the common cognitive illusions philosophy is aware of are called fallacies.

Modern philosophy and western enlightenment continue to progress riding upon Socrates's principle of verification (midwifery) and falsification (Stone Masonry).

Witches and Masons? :)

But most important of all is that the very foundation upon which our western enlightenment principles are built is the problem of induction aka the problem of the criterion. Civil freedom is founded on no other principle more basic than the problem of the criterion brought to us from the ancient Greeks.

Sextus Empiricus in 200AD quoted Pyrrho of about 300BC thus:

When they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of induction, they will effect this by a review of either all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars are infinite and indefinite

Later David Hume improved on this by introducing the western world to the problem of induction:

Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.

In science we have laws such as all bodies continue to move at a constant velocity unless acted on by a force. In philosophy we have laws like the law of non contradiction - something cannot both be and not be at the same time.

As in science where there are many laws - in philosophy too there are many laws.

If a question can be answered according to the MKS Theta system being Meters, kg's and Seconds with temperature in Degrees Kelvin then the answer comes from the employment of a tape measure, a weigh scale and a stop watch with a thermometer.

But if the question is something like "Does anyone have a right to their own opinion?" then because this cannot be answered with the use of any of the previous 4 instruments it has instead to be answered in the abstract according to the laws of philosophical logic. Does freedom bring happinesss? Does happines even matter? These are philosophical questions that are very important in the battles between cultures but they can only be answered by the application of philosophy. Thus one could argue that philosophy is prior to science - science was borne out of philosophy - it was called natural philosophy in Newtons time. But philosophy is surely far more important.

Philosophy is also the only cure for faulty thinking. The reason why more than 80% of any layman's thoughts are outright false is because layman are ignorant of philosophy. And when everyone shares the same 80% false beliefs we have a culture that is just a shared psychosis.

Philosophy is the only cure to psychosis. The most widely used and successful type of mental therapy is CBT or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - it is a system of teaching people to apply philosophy to their lives.

monkey spanners

19-12-2010, 08:01 PM

Is being correct about things really that important?

Jon :)

DTLarca

19-12-2010, 08:29 PM

Is being correct about things really that important?

Jon :)

Your question answers itself.

You would want to know the right answer to the question - wouldn't you? So you need to develop a reliable system of analysis to determine, firstly, whether the question is indeed a question to start off with, rather than a pseudo-question, and then, secondly, whether the answer found is also the right the answer.

You wouldn't want the wrong answer, surely?

So, yes, it HAS to matter.

monkey spanners

19-12-2010, 11:21 PM

Your question answers itself.

You wouldn't want the wrong answer, surely?

So, yes, it HAS to matter.

Well the point i was thinking about is having the correct answer to things is only important if you want to be correct about everything.

On important things like not making your morning cup of tea with windolene, and looking when you cross the road etc, its good to be correct (if you want to live a long life, otherwise even these are not imprtant), but on things at a 'higher' level not so much.
You could live a perfectly respectable life believing the earth is flat, believeing in or not believing in various divine Gods, thinking Socrates is an actor from the Bill and Ted film etc. Is being correct about these not that important?

If being correct about things is a source of happiness then needing to be correct is a route to only sadness, it being impossible to be correct about everything, in fact as you have stated, most of what we think is wrong!

I have a feeling that being right is both important and not important. It just is.

Jon :)

DTLarca

19-12-2010, 11:58 PM

Well the point i was thinking about is having the correct answer to things is only important if you want to be correct about everything.

On important things like not making your morning cup of tea with windolene, and looking when you cross the road etc, its good to be correct (if you want to live a long life, otherwise even these are not imprtant), but on things at a 'higher' level not so much.

You could live a perfectly respectable life believing the earth is flat, believeing in or not believing in various divine Gods, thinking Socrates is an actor from the Bill and Ted film etc. Is being correct about these not that important?

If being correct about things is a source of happiness then needing to be correct is a route to only sadness, it being impossible to be correct about everything, in fact as you have stated, most of what we think is wrong!

I have a feeling that being right is both important and not important. It just is.

Jon :)

I believe you arguments are more false than true. I believe we have been there before and life was not good. Life only became good when we started to care about the truth - but at the same time via the rebirth in Socrates's skepticism and epistemology our persuits have since been squarely founded on the principle known as the problem of the Criterion.

But it would take an essay to explain. I might have to insist you also read JS Mills "On Liberty" first.

Maybe watch this video when you get a moment. The problem of the criterion is reached at the end of the video. For me it goes a long way to answering your question but then I am probably in a position to better see the surrounding and background themes that allow this video to be something of an answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7l2WuwhDGs

mikeref

20-12-2010, 01:34 AM

Ah.. do you really have to write a book with your posts? (Thinking attachment might be better). How do you define a hobbie? Would this not be suited to history/ archive material, than again, provoking some responce could be interpreted as mind-games slash psychology. So, if its reference to long deceased persons life achievements that tickle your fancy, why don't you introduce the variable of science into their lives.. such as the Mayans, should the two have ever crossed paths.

nevgee

20-12-2010, 01:50 AM

Peoples corner? .... soap box? ..... My point is, do we need to take notice of other people's opinions. If those opinions don't appear to serve a purpose other than to fluff their own feathers?

Secondly; Is this theorising, pontification, really the right sort of topic for this site?

I suppose the responses will show the merit of the arguement. :)

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 01:53 AM

Ah.. do you really have to write a book with your posts? (Thinking attachment might be better). How do you define a hobbie? Would this not be suited to history/ archive material, than again, provoking some responce could be interpreted as mind-games slash psychology. So, if its reference to long deceased persons life achievements that tickle your fancy, why don't you introduce the variable of science into their lives.. such as the Mayans, should the two have ever crossed paths.

If the study of philosophy's problem of induction should be confined to studies of history then so too should be the ohms law. I think you are making a category mistake.

As for the Mayans and science, here's Richard Feynmans comments on that. Many say Feynman, not Einstein, was the most brilliant physicist last century...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E383eEA54DE

You see, just because you can describe the way something goes - it does not mean you know why it goes that way. Newton's theory of gravity describes the way the planets go but he admitted that he still did not know why they went that way. The Myans did stuff very laboriously - they were on par instead with Ptolemy.

nevgee

20-12-2010, 02:06 AM

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet  Good argument  Affirming the antecedent. :rolleyes:

Is this really true? ;)

A: water is wet ... for some reason!

B: The road is never wet .... only the water that lays on it is wet, not the road. :p

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 02:32 AM

A: water is wet ... for some reason!

Is water always wet?

Of course H2O is not always wet.

And is the question about analyticity or syntheticity?

nevgee

20-12-2010, 02:55 AM

Rain being mostly water is deemed wet ... rain water is H2O, rain water was the substance in question. ... nothing else.
you are trying to deviate from the specifics by throwing in complexities to the discussion. You're creating a smoke screen to avoid the point and I guess to create confusion for your own advantage.

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 03:01 AM

Rain being mostly water is deemed wet ... rain water is H2O, rain water was the substance in question. ... nothing else.
you are trying to deviate from the specifics by throwing in complexities to the discussion. You're creating a smoke screen to avoid the point and I guess to create confusion for your own advantage.

As I've said before, Nevgee, you are cynical. You want to try be a little more skeptical - you're almost there.

I promise - I am talking about rain water. I promise - there is no smoke screen - no conspiracy.

Seriously, simple question, is rain water always wet?

El Padre

20-12-2010, 10:46 AM

Howdy Partners,

I am trying to read this on my Blackberry, I'll have to wait untill I get home to try and digest from a decent size monitor, but you made me think about "The Cretan that says all Cretans lie", Is he telling the truth?

Was it Aristotle that said there is no middle ground (or words to that effect)?

Cheers

TRASH101

20-12-2010, 11:19 AM

Well I, for one, do enjoy reading your posts DTLarca and hope there is yet more to come.

With your "rain example" the lack of definitive parameters makes it false but could be remedied by a controlled environment.

Isn't that what engineering is?

taz24

20-12-2010, 02:50 PM

As I've said before, Nevgee, you are cynical. You want to try be a little more skeptical - you're almost there.

I promise - I am talking about rain water. I promise - there is no smoke screen - no conspiracy.

Seriously, simple question, is rain water always wet?

If you ask a simple question like "is rain always wet"? There could be more than one answer, could there not?

1 Yes rain water is always wet
2 No rain water in never wet
3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

You may have to define wet and rain water... :D

I like debates like this. A bit heavy maybe but ok as long as you include humour.

Life without humour is no life (don't coment on that its too deep).

taz

.

paul_h

20-12-2010, 02:51 PM

Is water always wet?
Middle of summer here, freak rains happening - they happen every time I leave boxed A/Cs in the driveway when I have no undercover space left.
But anyway, being middle of summer here I had a few rooftop units booked in to service today. And it was raining, and I got very wet.
edit: removed comments, but I'm playing the simpleton because I think you're just trolling now.

taz24

20-12-2010, 02:52 PM

Middle of summer here, freak rains happening - they happen every time I leave boxed A/Cs in the driveway because I have no undercover space left - seriously, last it rained was in november when it hardly ever rains also, but it rained the week I left boxed a/c out in the driveway in november too.

But anyway, being middle of summer here I had a few rooftop units booked in to service today. And it was raining, and I got very wet.

Are you saying it only rains when you leave a box outside or when you are on a roof :D

taz

.

paul_h

20-12-2010, 03:00 PM

Just joking, see edit above.

taz24

20-12-2010, 03:21 PM

Just joking, see edit above.

Aaaaaahhhhhhhh..

Me sees :o

taz

.

monkey spanners

20-12-2010, 04:41 PM

The road could be a in a tunnel....

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 06:07 PM

Howdy Partners,

I am trying to read this on my Blackberry, I'll have to wait untill I get home to try and digest from a decent size monitor, but you made me think about "The Cretan that says all Cretans lie", Is he telling the truth?

Was it Aristotle that said there is no middle ground (or words to that effect)?

Cheers

Not sure - although Aristotle is the one who argued for a happy medium for everything i.e. a golden mean. Don't eat too much but also don't under nourish yourself - same for alcohol. But then he also said that sometimes the mean should be excluded. Do you Jump off the empire state building once, sometimes, every now and then, or never. He says it cannot be sometimes every now and then - it is either once or never. Same as cheating on your wife - ask her if she is happy with the mean :)

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 06:19 PM

Well I, for one, do enjoy reading your posts DTLarca and hope there is yet more to come.

With your "rain example" the lack of definitive parameters makes it false but could be remedied by a controlled environment.

Isn't that what engineering is?

There very possibly is more too come - glad you assume such a relaxed or prejudice free view on it :)

To answer the question "What is engineering?" you are forced to philosophise - that is if the answer will be in a synthetic form or a contingent form i.e. made up of more than one concept taken from the world. If instead you are arbitrarily defining the word "engineering" then you are building a concept, predicate, into the word itself and thus would actually not be saying anything interesting about the world. From the synthetic point of view - the question can not be answered any other way but by philosophising. And so if you want the right answer then you must care that your philosophising system works otherwise good info in but garbage out :)

The parameters in the rain example are set in stone with the base proposition which is "If it is raining then the road(s) will be yet". In other words the roads have been inspected and have been found to be of such a nature that they cannot possibly stay dry if it rains straight down from above the road.

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 06:21 PM

B: The road is never wet .... only the water that lays on it is wet, not the road. :p

You see - it is definitionally true of water that it is wet. That is what we mean when we say soemething is wet - we mean water is on or in it. If the roads have water on them then they are wet - simply because wet means "has water on it".

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 06:27 PM

The road could be a in a tunnel....

But when I introduce the proposition "If it is raining the raod will be wet" I am insisting that knowing the scenario in its entirety this particular road in question will be wet if it rains :)

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 06:43 PM

Buddhist Monks Debating - trying to prove each other wrong by introducing a contradictory point or at least a point contrary to the first in order to gain better insight into their topics of study for the day but also to better appreciate the limits of knowledge and thus to better develop a skeptical stance toward everything in life - to avoid the greatest evil possible by man - the evil of dogma - where one man claims he knows the only truth - the one and only truth - which as Socrates shows in his dialogues - is only possible if you are ignorant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy1OElxSTqY

I don't know what they are saying but it might be something like ...

One guy says "Two heads are better than one" and the other says, slapping his hands together, "Too many cooks Spoil the broth" and the first replies "but many hands make light work".
---
Where there's smoke there's fire - ah, (slap hands) but have you never heard You can't tell a book by its cover.
---
He who hesitates is lost - ah but have you never heard Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
---
Better safe than sorry - ah but have you never heard Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
---
A new broom sweeps clean - ah but have you never heard Many a good tune is played on an old fiddle.
---
Where there is a will, there's a way - ah but have you never heard If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
---
Birds of a feather flock together - ah but have you never heard Opposites attract.
---
Great minds think a like - ah but have you never heard Fools seldom differ.

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 07:05 PM

If you ask a simple question like "is rain always wet"? There could be more than one answer, could there not?

1 Yes rain water is always wet
2 No rain water in never wet
3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

You may have to define wet and rain water... :D

I like debates like this. A bit heavy maybe but ok as long as you include humour.

Life without humour is no life (don't coment on that its too deep).

taz

.

2 No rain water is never wet

Is 2 really a possible answer? It might be if we were talking of matters that were contingent. But we are talking about definitions of stuff out their in the world - as in what is predicated of stuff in the world but in definitional form such that the predicate is embedded within the word of which we are discussing its definition.

3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

These two options are the same option - if you have one then you must have the other. The one is just another way to express the other. So in the end we still only have two options which are 1 and (3 or 4 or both).

cool runings

20-12-2010, 09:08 PM

2 No rain water is never wet

Is 2 really a possible answer? It might be if we were talking of matters that were contingent. But we are talking about definitions of stuff out their in the world - as in what is predicated of stuff in the world but in definitional form such that the predicate is embedded within the word of which we are discussing its definition.

3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

These two options are the same option - if you have one then you must have the other. The one is just another way to express the other. So in the end we still only have two options which are 1 and (3 or 4 or both).

I did not claim it was right or correct but I used your earlier comment about what is logical.

If it is raining the roads will be wet.

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet  Good argument  Affirming the antecedent.

2.It is not raining therefore the roads will not be wet  Bad argument  It might have just recently stopped raining  Denying the antecedent.

3.The roads are wet therefore it is raining  Bad argument  It might have just recently stopped raining  Affirming the consequent.

4.The roads are not wet therefore it is not raining  Good argument and in fact the major pillar of the scientific and philosophical systems of method  Denying the consequent.

These are statements.

They may be correct or incorrect but they are statements.

So when I ask if
Rain is sometimes wet
Rain is sometimes not wet

Could that not indicate that Rain could be dry??

By what standard are you claiming rain is wet, therfore saying any road with rain on it must be wet??

I'm not saying you are wrong, but when you make a statement of fact then that fact has to be proveable.

How can we prove rain is wet?
Is snow wet? or dry if snow is dry is it not rain?
Is mist not rain, just in very fine droplets?

coolrunnings

.

DTLarca

20-12-2010, 09:15 PM

I did not claim it was right or correct but I used your earlier comment about what is logical.

If it is raining the roads will be wet.

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet  Good argument  Affirming the antecedent.

2.It is not raining therefore the roads will not be wet  Bad argument  It might have just recently stopped raining  Denying the antecedent.

3.The roads are wet therefore it is raining  Bad argument  It might have just recently stopped raining  Affirming the consequent.

4.The roads are not wet therefore it is not raining  Good argument and in fact the major pillar of the scientific and philosophical systems of method  Denying the consequent.

These are statements.

They may be correct or incorrect but they are statements.

So when I ask if
Rain is sometimes wet
Rain is sometimes not wet

Could that not indicate that Rain could be dry??

By what standard are you claiming rain is wet, therfore saying any road with rain on it must be wet??

I'm not saying you are wrong, but when you make a statement of fact then that fact has to be proveable.

How can we prove rain is wet?
Is snow wet? or dry if snow is dry is it not rain?
Is mist not rain, just in very fine droplets?

coolrunnings

.

You are missing my point.

Analytic statements are statements true by virtue of their meaning alone. To know whether they are true or not we do not need to go out into the world to test every instance to see if the truth is universal. We only have to analyse the terms hence "analytic" statement. A bachelor is an unmarried man. You do not have to go out into the world and check every unmarried man to determine whether he is also a bachelor. They all just are bachelors by virtue of the meaning of the term itself.

Wet just means "has water on it" or "has water in it" or "is in water" etc.

A triangle has three sides, water is wet and bachelors are unmarried men are all analytic statements.

cool runings

20-12-2010, 09:36 PM

You are missing my point.

Analytic statements are statements true by virtue of their meaning alone. To know whether they are true or not we do not need to go out into the world to test every instance to see if the truth is universal. We only have to analyse the terms hence "analytic" statement. A bachelor is an unmarried man. You do not have to go out into the world and check every unmarried man to determine whether he is also a bachelor. They all just are bachelors by virtue of the meaning of the term itself.

Wet just means "has water on it" or "has water in it" or "is in water" etc.

A triangle has three sides, water is wet and bachelors are unmarried men are all analytic statements.

But there you go ....

By using words you you prove words can be used as a tool.

Words and lagauge might be wrong??

Take a known.
Absolute Zero. What is absolute zero? It is ameasure of 0 deg K but what if tommorow I invent a machine that can pull 10 units lower than Absolute Zero.

Does that mean Absolute Zero is wrong or our defination of it??

All reasoning and all argument must surely be debateable????

All the best

coolrunnings

.

monkey spanners

20-12-2010, 10:35 PM

Words are funny things, empty of any inherent meaning. (If words had inbuilt meaning then we would not have to learn a foreign language, it would just be understood).

Now the trouble is we use words to teach the meaning of new ones, none of us have the same understanding and take the same meaning from them, there will be everything from very subtle differences in understanding to gross differences and associated feelings.

Then there are some words that we just don't like for no good reason, (as we are not rational beings)
I don't like the word 'bachelor', i suspect because it sounds like 'spatula' which i suspect i don't like because i my mind it is in the same catagory as those salad tosser things which as a child i had a phobia of, i mean they ain't spoons and they ain't forks, what the hell are they :rolleyes:

Jon :)

cool runings

20-12-2010, 10:42 PM

i mean they ain't spoons and they ain't forks, what the hell are they :rolleyes:

Jon :)

:D

No responce needed.

coolrunnings

.

El Padre

23-12-2010, 08:25 PM

I cant answer the question " What is Philoshophy" or even compare it with science, but just by reading the question, my thoughts and imagination are stimulated to think and reflect at a deeper level than I normally would which is perhaps what Philoshophy is, a means of self discovery?

Cheers and Happy Xmas

DTLarca

02-01-2011, 03:28 PM

I've uploaded an audio file to my facebook page - It is Janet Radcliffe-Richards' description of what philosophy is.

http://www.facebook.com/v/1701480252173

desA

02-01-2011, 04:46 PM

The following book is an excellent read:

James Hannam, "God's Philosophers - How the medieval world laid the foundations of modern science", Icon Books, 2009

DTLarca

02-01-2011, 04:54 PM

The following book is an excellent read:

Indeed - it has a good reputation - I have read here and there from it but will only read it cover to cover in a few months time when I have finished another 8 philosophy books I am currently reading :)